Plato on the Thessalian Trick: A New Interpretation of Gorgias 513A

—————

Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 282–294

A New Interpretation of Gorgias 513A

Nereida Villagra

SENTENCE IN

Gorgias 513

, a passage in which Socrates

debates with Callicles on how to obtain power in the

city, has long been discussed for the difficulty it poses in

its use of the preposition

σύν

. The dialogue deals with the value

of rhetoric and how a good statesman should act. In what

precedes the passage discussed here, Socrates has arrived at the

conclusion that rhetoric should be used to punish oneself and

one’s friends when they commit injustice, or to help enemies to

avoid punishment, because committing injustice is worse than

suffering it (480–481). Callicles does not agree and reacts by

criticizing Socrates’ relationship to philosophy, since it does not

allow him to protect himself or his friends (486

–

). Then

comes a long dialogue in which Socrates, in order to refute

Callicles, asks him about various moral issues (488–500

). After

that, the inquiry moves back to the topic of rhetoric and

Socra-tes asks Callicles what the purpose of life is and the best way to

live (500

–509). In response to Callicles’ statement that the best

way to live is to have power (510

–512), Socrates inquires how

one obtains power in the city and mentions the Thessalian

women as an exemplum of the fact that excercising power can

have harmful consequences (512

–513

):

µὴ γὰρ τοῦτο µέν, τὸ ζῆν ὁποσονδὴ χρόνον, τόν γε ὡς

ἀληθῶς ἄνδρα ἐατέον ἐστίν, καὶ οὐ φιλοψυχητέον, ἀλλὰ

ἐπιτρέψαντα περὶ τούτων τῷ θεῷ καὶ πιστεύσαντα ταῖς

1 _{Text R. Dodds, Gorgias: A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary}

(Oxford 1959); transl. T. Irwin, Plato, Gorgias (Oxford 1979).

A

—————

Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 282–294

5 10 15 20

γυναιξὶν ὅτι τὴν εἱµαρµένην οὐδ’ ἂν εἷς ἐκφύγοι, τὸ ἐπὶ

τούτῳ σκεπτέον τίν’ ἂν τρόπον τοῦτον ὃν µέλλοι χρόνον

βιῶναι ὡς ἄριστα βιῴη, ἆρα ἐξοµοιῶν αὑτὸν τῇ πολιτείᾳ

ταύτῃ ἐν ᾗ ἂν οἰκῇ, καὶ νῦν δὲ ἄρα δεῖ σὲ ὡς ὁµοιότατον

γίγνεσθαι τῷ δήµῳ τῷ Ἀθηναίων, εἰ µέλλεις τούτῳ

προσ-φιλὴς εἶναι καὶ µέγα δύνασθαι ἐν τῇ πόλει· τ ο ῦ θ ’ ὅ ρ α

ε ἰ σ ο ὶ λ υ σ ιτ ε λ ε ῖ κ α ὶ ἐ µ ο ί, ὅ π ω ς µ ή , ὦ δ α ιµ ό ν ιε ,

π ε ισ ό µ ε θ α ὅ π ε ρ φ α σ ὶ τ ὰ ς τ ὴ ν σ ε λ ή ν η ν κ α θ α ι ρ ο ύ

σ α ς , τ ὰ ς Θ ε τ τ α λ ίδ α ς · σ ὺ ν τ ο ῖς φ ιλ τ ά τ ο ις ἡ α ἵρ ε

-σ ις ἡ µ ῖν ἔ -σ τ α ι τ α ύ τ η ς τ ῆ ς δ υ ν ά µ ε ω ς τ ῆ ς ἐ ν τ ῇ

π ό λ ε ι. εἰ δέ σοι οἴει ὁντινοῦν ἀνθρώπων παραδώσειν

τέχνην τινὰ τοιαύτην, ἥτις σε ποιήσει µέγα δύνασθαι ἐν

τῇ πόλει τῇδε ἀνόµοιον ὄντα τῇ πολιτείᾳ εἴτ’ ἐπὶ τὸ

βέλ-τιον εἴτ’ ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον, ὡς ἐµοὶ δοκεῖ, οὐκ ὀρθῶς βουλεύῃ,

ὦ Καλλίκλεις· οὐ γὰρ µιµητὴν δεῖ εἶναι ἀλλ’ αὐτοφυῶς

ὅµοιον τούτοις, εἰ µέλλεις τι γνήσιον ἀπεργάζεσθαι εἰς

φιλίαν τῷ Ἀθηναίων δήµῳ καὶ ναὶ µὰ Δία τῷ

Πυριλάµ-πους γε πρός.

For surely a real man should forget about living some particular

length of time, and should not be anxious about his life. He

should leave all this to the god, and believe the women when

they say that not a single man can escape destiny. Then he

should consider the next question, how best to live, for however

long he is to live should he live conforming himself to the

politi-cal system he lives under, and should you now become as much

like the Athenian people as possible, if you are to be a friend of

theirs and gain great power in the city? See if this benefits you

and me, so that the same thing doesn’t happen to us, my

excel-lent man, as they say happens to the women who draw down the

moon, the Thessalian women; for we will risk what is dearest to

us when we choose this power in the city. But if you think

any-one will pass on to you some craft which will make you powerful

in this city when you are unlike this political system, better or

worse than it, then I think you are planning wrongly, Callicles.

For you shouldn’t be an imitator, but like them in your own

nature if you are to achieve anything genuine towards friendship

with the Athenian demos, yes, with Demos the son of

Pyrilam-pes too.

After this passage, Socrates continues developing his criticism

of oratory: the only way to be powerful is by being like others,

and when one assimilates to others, one can no longer make

them better, which should be the only objective of a good

poli-tician. Thus the power which oratory provides does not pursue

goodness but is a type of adulation. Therefore, oratory does not

help the citizens and is an art with no real value.

Since the editio princeps of the Gorgias, all editors, translators,

and commentators have followed the same interpretation of the

syntagm

σὺν τοῖς φιλτάτοις

, understanding it to refer to the

sentence

ἡ αἵρεσις ἡµῖν ἔσται ταύτης τῆς δυνάµεως τῆς ἐν τῇ

πόλει—

as do the text and translation reproduced above

—

struggling to explain the value of

σύν

.

Heindorf commented

that one would expect the preposition

ἐπί

here instead of

σύν

,

but nevertheless he follows the same reading.

_{However, in my}

opinion, the interpretation

σὺν τοῖς φιλτάτοις

is not completely

satisfactory. On the one hand, it forces the philologist to create

a new use of the preposition

σύν

ad hoc, as Heindorf himself

accepts when he notes that one would have expected

ἐπί

rather

than

σύν

. On the other hand, Heindorf

’s interpretation does

not clarify why Socrates refers to the Thessalian trick and,

therefore, the relation between this exemplum and its immediate

2 _{Aldus Manutius, Omnia Platonis opera (Florence 1513) 454; J. Serranus,}

Platonis Opera quae extant omnia I (Geneva 1578); M. J. Routh, Euthydemus et Gorgias (Oxford 1784); L. F. Heindorf, Platonis Dialogi selecti. Gorgias. Theaetetus (Berlin 1805); I. Bekker, Platonis scripta Graece omnia III (London 1829), who quotes extensively from Routh and Heindorf’s comments on the text; E. R. Dodds, Gorgias; R. Serrano Cantarín and M. Díaz de Cerio Díez, Platón. Gorgias (Madrid 2002); A. Croiset and L. Bodin, Platon. Œuvres complètes III.2 (Paris 1955); G. La Magna, Platone. Gorgia (Milan 1967); J. Dalfen, Platon. Gorgias. Übersetzung und Kommentar (Göttingen 2004).

3 _{Heindorf, Platonis Dialogi 212: “σὺν τοὶς φιλτάτοις est cum damno eius,}

quod carissimum nobis esse debet (virtutis et honestatis). Cui simile illud περὶ τοῖς φιλτάτοις κυβεύειν τε καὶ κινδυνεύειν Protag. P. 313. E. et alibi. Quanquam pro σύν h. l. exspectabam potius ἐπί.”

—————

Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 282–294

context remains unclear. Dodds follows the same

interpre-tation, vaguely commenting that it is used as a negative

example.

If we consider carefully the testimonies which deal with the

tradition on the Thessalian trick, we find reason to consider

that the syntagm

σὺν τοῖς φιλτάτοις

belongs to the preceding

sentence, and hence to propose a change in the punctuation of

Plato’s text. This change would in turn allow a clearer

inter-pretation not only of the value of the preposition

σύν

, but also

of the passage as a whole.

Several lexicographical entries that elucidate the expression

ἐπὶ σαυτῷ τὴν σελήνην καθέλκεις

(“pull the moon against

yourself

”) explain that it derives from the belief that the

Thes-salian women hurt themselves when operating their spell.

4 _{Dodds, Gorgias 351: “The reference is to the widespread belief that a}

witch must pay for her powers either by a mutilation (often blindness) or by the sacrifice of a member of her family.” Other translators have made sim-ilar remarks. W. R. M. Lamb, Plato III Gorgias. Protagoras (Cambridge 1967) 484: “Socrates alludes to the popular theory that the practice of witchcraft is a serious danger or utter destruction to the practicer.” Serrano Cantarín and Díaz de Cerio Díez (Platón. Gorgias 220 n.841) quote Olympiodorus and the Suda to explain the tradition alluded to by Socrates. Dodds quotes two passages which he considers to be parallel uses of the preposition σύν. In the examples given by Dindorf, σύν is not used with the verb εἰµί and a dative, as we find in Plato, nor, in my opinion, does the preposition σύν have the same value in these instances.

5 _{Ps.-Plut. Proverb.Alex. 13; Apostolius 7.81; Suda. s.v. Ἐπὶ σαυτῷ τὴν}

σελήνην καθέλκεις. Almost contempory with Plato is a reference to the tradition of the Thessalian trick in Aristophanes’ Nubes, where Strepsiades comes out with the idea of hiring a Thessalian witch (γυναῖκα φαρµακίδ’) to pull down the moon, thus stopping the growth of interest on his debts (749– 750). On Thessalian women as witches see O. Phillips, “The Witches’ Thessaly,” in P. Mirecki and M. Meyer (eds.), Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World (Leiden 2001) 378–386. On the spell see D. E. Hill, “The Thessalian Trick,” RhM 116 (1973) 221–238; P. J. Bicknell, “The Dark Side of the Moon,” in A. Moffatt (ed.), MAISTOR: Classical, Byzantine and Renaissance Studies for Robert Browning (Canberra 1984) 67–75; Ch. Mugler, “Sur l’origine et le sens de l’expression καθαιρεῖν τὴν σελήνην,” REA 61 (1959) 48–56.

Since lexicographers depend upon each other, it is not

surpris-ing that lexicographical works transmit the same

—

or almost

the same

—

text. However, while all the readings state that the

harm the Thessalian women inflict upon themselves is the loss

of an eye or a foot, Zenobius’ text (4.1) says that they lose an

eye or a “child.”

_{This is a significant variant, for the idea of}

losing a child can be related to the Platonic text where,

accord-ing to my interpretation, Socrates would refer to the people

dearest to the Thessalian witches:

ἐπὶ σαυτῷ τὴν σελήνην καθαιρεῖς· αἱ τὴν σελήνην

καθαι-ροῦσαι Θετταλίδες λέγονται τῶν ὀφθαλµῶν καὶ τῶν παίδων

στερίσκεσθαι. εἴρηται οὖν ἐπὶ τῶν ἑαυτοῖς τὰ κακὰ

ἐπισπω-µένων ἡ παροιµία.

“You pull down the moon against yourself

”: It is said that when

Thessalian women pull down the moon, they are progressively

deprived of their eyes and their children. This expression is said,

then, about those who bring misfortunes upon themselves.

Dodds pointed out that this might be the “true reading,”

_since

a note in the Bodleian codex of Zenobius offers the following

explanation:

ἐπὶ σαυτῷ τὴν σελήνην καθαιρεῖς· ᾽Ασκληπιάδης φησὶ τὰς

Θετταλὰς ἐκµαθούσας τὰς τῆς σελήνης κινήσεις

προαγγέλ-λειν, ὡς ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν µέλλοι κατάγεσθαι, τοῦτο δὲ πράττειν οὐ

χωρὶς τῆς ὑπ’ αὐτῶν κακώσεως· ἢ γὰρ καταθύειν τῶν τέκνων

ἢ τὸν ἕτερον τῶν ὀφθαλµῶν ἀπολλύειν· λέγεται γοῦν ἐπὶ τῶν

κακὰ ποριζοµένων. Δοῦρις δέ φησιν ἀστρολόγον

προαγορεύ-οντα τὰς τῆς σελήνης ἐκλείψεις οὐκ εὖ ἀπαλλάξαι.

3 ὑπ’ αὐτῶν κακώσεως B: ὑπ’ del. Gaisford, Leutsch, Jacoby ǀǀ 4 τῶν τέκνων: ἕνα τῶν τέκνων suppl. fort. Jacoby

6 _{On the harm suffered by the Thessalian women see N. Villagra,}

“Tesa-lias: brujas, cojas y sin hijos,” in E. Suárez de la Torre and A. Pérez Jiménez (eds.), Mito y Magia en Grecia y Roma (Barcelona 2013) 67–76.

7 _{Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are mine.} 8 _{Dodds, Gorgias 351.}

9 _{Leutsch, Paroem.Gr. I pp.83–84 = Jacoby, FGrHist 12 F 20 = Proverb.Bodl.}

—————

Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 282–294

“You pull down the moon against yourself

”: Asclepiades says

that the Thessalian women, having learned the movements of

the moon, announce them as if they had pulled it down, and

that they do so not without inflicting harm upon themselves.

Indeed, they either sacrifice one of their children or are hurt in

one eye. This then is said about those who bring evil upon

themselves. Duris says that an astronomer who announced the

moon’s eclipses did not end well.

Since Müller’s edition in 1849 (FHG III 306), the Asclepiades

mentioned here has been identified as the mythographer

Asclepiades of Tragilos, a fourth-century author who we are

told was a pupil of Isocrates and who wrote a work in six books

titled the Tragodumena.

_{If this identification is correct, we}

would have a testimony very close in time to the Platonic text

—

whose date of composition is considered to be around 387–385

BCE

—

indicating that the Thessalian women sacrificed a child

to operate their spell, or during its operation.

A text in the scholia to Apollonius Rhodius also refers to the

trick of pulling down the moon and links it specifically to the

loss of a relative (schol. 4.59–61a):

ἦ θαµὰ δὴ καὶ σεῖο· µεµύθευται, ὡς ἄρα αἱ φαρµακίδες τὴν

σελήνην ταῖς ἐπῳδαῖς κατασπῶσι. τοῦτο δὲ ποιεῖν δοκοῦσιν

αἱ Θεσσαλαὶ σφαλεῖσαι τῆς ὑπολήψεως· καθὸ Ἀγλαονίκη,

10 _{Duris is identified with the Samian historian of the fourth-third century}

BCE. This anonymous figure is not a Thessalian witch, but a parallelism can be established between Duris’ anonymous astronomer and the Thes-salian women. Although the text refers vaguely to the bad end of this astronomer, it reflects the same idea we find in the other testimonies: that the observation or manipulation of celestial bodies causes harm. Indeed, the fact that the lexicographer places Duris’ fragment precisely after Asclepi-ades’ shows that he takes this text as evidence of the same idea. Also, a scholion to Apollonius Rhodius explains the spell of pulling down the moon as a fraud based on an astronomical skill (see below).

11 _{X Orat. Vit. 837C (Mau). For an edition and commentary on his}

frag-ments see N. Villagra, Τραγῳδούµενα. Edición crítica, traducción y comentario de los fragmentos atribuidos a Asclepíades de Tragilo (diss. Bellaterra 2012).

Ἡγέµονος θυγάτηρ, ἔµπειρος οὖσα τῆς ἀστρολογίας καὶ

εἰδυῖα τὰς ἐκλείψεις τῆς σελήνης, ὁπότε µέλλοι αὐταῖς

ἐγ-γενήσεσθαι, ἔφασκε τὴν θεὸν κατασπᾶν, καὶ παραχρῆµα

περιέπιπτε συµφοραῖς, τῶν οἰκείων τινὰ ἀποβαλοῦσα. ὅθεν

κατὰ τὸν βίον λέγεται παροιµία ἐπὶ

<…> “τὴν σελήνην

κατασπᾷ

.”

The myth runs that witches pull down the moon with their

spells. It is said that when Thessalian witches do this, their plan

is foiled. Accordingly, Aglaonice, the daughter of Hegemon,

who was skilled in astronomy and knew the eclipses of the moon

and when they were going to happen, used to say that she was

drawing down the goddess, and immediately fell into calamities,

losing one of her kin. Thus it is from her life that the proverb is

said about <…> “draws down the moon.”

Surprisingly, the scholion talks about a specific woman,

Aglao-nice, whose case provided the origin of the expression. The

explanation of Aglaonice’s magic as a fraud based on her

knowledge is similar to the rationalistic interpretation we read

in the Bodleian manuscript of Zenobius citing Asclepiades’

authority. Be that as it may, what is relevant is that the story of

Aglaonice provides an independent testimony of the loss of a

relative associated with the trick of pulling down the moon,

which is clearly associated with the Thessalian women.

Olympiodorus, the sixth-century Neoplatonist who wrote

commentaries on several of Plato’s dialogues, also seems to

have understood the passage of the Gorgias as referring to the

loss of children and other dear ones (In Grg. 39.2):

ἡ δὲ ἱστορία ἐστὶν αὕτη· ὥσπερ νῦν ἐν ταῖς ἐκλείψεσιν

νοµίζουσι µάγους καταφέρειν τὴν σελήνην, οὕτω καὶ πάλαι

ᾤοντο τὰς Θετταλικὰς γυναῖκας λέγειν τινά, καὶ εἰ µὲν

δυνη-13 _{This Aglaonice is mentioned twice by Plutarch for her astronomical}

skills: Mor. 145C (Coniug. Prae.) and 416F–417A (De def. or.). As these three

texts are the only testimonies we have, we cannot place her in time with any certainty. P. Bicknell, “The Witch Aglaonice and Dark Lunar Eclipses in the Second and First Centuries BC,” Journal of the British Astronomical Associa-tion 93 (1983) 160–163, points out that Aglaonice must have lived in Plu-tarch’s time at the latest and not before the third century BCE.

—————

Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 282–294

θείησαν, φασίν, καταγαγεῖν, ἐποίουν τὸ σπουδαζόµενον, ε ἰ

δ ὲ ἀ δ υ ν ά τ ω ς ἔ σ χ ο ν π ρ ὸ ς τ ὸ κ α τ α γ α γ ε ῖν , π ρ ό ρ ρ ιζ ο ι

ἀ π ώ λ ο ν τ ο α ὐ τ α ί τ ε κ α ὶ τ ὰ π α ιδ ία κ α ὶ ο ἱ ἄ ν δ ρ ε ς κ α ὶ

α ἱ π ό λ ε ις . τοῦτο οὖν λέγει, ὅτι ὁ ὁµοιούµενος τῇ κρατούσῃ

πολιτείᾳ πρόρριζον τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπόλλυσιν.

And this is the story: just as magicians are believed to have

pulled down the moon when there are eclipses today, in ancient

times it was believed that Thessalian women said something and

if they could pull it down, they accomplished anything they

desired; but if they were unable to achieve the descent, they

certainly killed themselves, their children, their husbands, and

their cities. This means that the one who becomes similar to the

politeia which rules, utterly destroys his soul.

With the expression

ἡ δὲ ἱστορία ἐστὶν αὕτη—

very common in

scholia to introduce mythical narratives

—

Olympiodorus

intro-duces the story of an ancient tradition

—καὶ πάλαι ᾤοντο—

necessary to understand Plato’s words. After the

ἱστορία

he

offers an interpretation of the Platonic ideas, which is

intro-duced by the expression

τοῦτο οὖν λέγει

, equivalent to our

“i.e.”

The

ἱστορία

relates that it was believed that a mistake in the

performance of the spell caused the death of the witches

them-selves and their families, and brought destruction upon their

cities. I think it is significant that Olympiodorus never refers to

the mutilation or loss of feet or eyes. In his account, what the

Thessalian women destroy can easily be put under the generic

designation of

τοῖς φιλτάτοις

of the Platonic text, which is

interpreted as a neuter noun by Heindorf, Bekker, and Dodds.

However, it could also be a masculine noun referring to the

“dear ones” of the Thessalian women (i.e. their family and

fellow-citizens). Thus, Olympiodorus would be explaining the

Platonic generic expression

σὺν τοῖς φιλτάτοις

by naming the

specific elements included in it. Indeed, his reading of the

Platonic passage must be that

σὺν τοῖς φιλτάτοις

belongs to the

sentence which refers to the Thessalian women. Of course, a

sixth-century commentary is a late text to provide evidence of a

belief in Plato’s time. However, I think it is very revealing that

Olympiodorus understood Plato’s text this way, and none of

the editors or translators of Plato seem to have noticed this.

In addition to the sources which specifically relate the

Thessalian trick to the death or ruin of kin, several mythical

traditions link magic to the death of relatives who are the

ad-dressees of spells

—

children, husbands, or fathers. Thus, Medea

is the archetype of the sorceress in Classical literature and

many traditions make her responsible for the deaths of

mem-bers of her family: she killed her brother Apsyrtus,

_{and she}

caused the death of her own children.

_{Her attitude is clearly}

14 _{The best-known version is that of Apollonius Rhodius, in which}

Apsyr-tus is an adult man who chases the Argonauts when the Colchians realize they are escaping with the golden fleece (4.303–481). However, other sources say that Apsyrtus was a baby and was murdered either by Medea or by the Argonauts (Pherecyd. fr.32 Fowler). An interesting scholion which quotes Leon the rhetor states that Apsyrtus was killed with pharmaka (schol. Eur. Med. 167 [FGrHist 278 F 2]). Euripides and Sophocles attributed this crime to Medea: Soph. TrGF IV FF 546 and 343; Eur. Med. 1334–1335.

Later sources include Hyg. Fab. 23 and Orph.Arg. 1024–1032. On Apsyrtus see J. Bremmer, “Why Did Medea Kill Her Brother Apsyrtus?” in J. J. Clauss and S. I. Johnston (eds.), Medea: Essays on Medea (Princeton 1997) 83– 100.

15 _{Medea’s killing of her own children is described by Euripides as an act}

of revenge on Jason (Med. 1399), a version which would become canonical. See E. Griffiths, Medea (London/New York 2006) 47, 81–84. However, as Mastronarde points out, Euripides must have known other traditions of the death of the children: D. J. Mastronarde, Euripides: Medea (Cambridge 2002) 50–53 and 360–361, on lines 1236–1250 and 1238–1239. According to a local Corinthian tradition recorded by Pausanias (2.3.6), the children were stoned by the inhabitants of the city as punishment because they helped Medea to poison Glauke. In schol. Med. 264, which transmits a fragment of Parmeniscus, a grammarian of the second or first century BCE, and a fragment of Creophylus, the women of Corinth killed Medea’s children as an act of rebellion against the new foreign and magical queen. Pausanias (2.3.10) provides still another version, quoting Eumelos of Corinth (FGrHist 451 F 2a), in which Medea sent her children to Hera’s temple in order to

make them immortal, but did not succeed. The narrative is not explicit on what happened to the children, but we can guess that they died. These ver-sions might distantly reflect the idea that a great power such as magic comes at the price of losing the children.

—————

Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 282–294

different from that of the Thessalian women, who cause the

death of their relatives unwilllingly.

_{However, it is interesting}

that she is the inducer of the patricide of Pelias, tricking his

daughters with her advise of a magic spell that would restore

his youth. Thus, the Peliades can be seen as a parallel to the

Thessalian women, for they wanted to help their father but

ended up killing him because they did not know how to use the

magical power.

_{Also Deianira, even though she is not a}

φαρ-µακίς

, killed her husband Heracles by applying a putative love

charm, following the instructions of Nesos.

Let us return now to Plato’s text. As noted above, the

refer-ence to the Thessalian trick occurs when Socrates is debating

the best way to obtain power in the city. This discussion

de-velops out of his inquiry into which art provides the power to

protect oneself and one’s loved ones from injustice. In fact, the

importance of relatives and friends is often stressed in relation

to ideas of committing injustice and being punished. In several

16 _{The oldest sources on Medea show her as a sorceress. In an interesting}

passage of Apollonius, the goddess Selene describes Medea as a witch and complains that she had pulled her down many times (4.50–64). This shows that by the third century Medea had been assimilated to a Thessalian φαρ-µακίς. See Griffiths, Medea 41–46. On the construction of the character of Medea see Clauss and Johnston, Medea.

17 _{Pindar refers to Pelias’ death in an allusive way, saying only that}

Medea killed him (Pyth. 4.249–250), and we know that two lost tragedies treated the episode (Eur. TrGF V FF 601–616; Soph. TrGF IV FF 534–536). Other sources include Eur. Med. 9; Paus. 8.11.2; Ov. Met. 7.297–349; Hyg. Fab. 24; Palaeph. 41; Apollod. 1.9.27; Diod. 4.51.

18 _{In Soph. Trachiniae Deianira is not characterized as a φαρµακίς, but as}

a wife desperate to win back the love of her husband. P. E. Easterling, Sophocles. Trachiniae (Cambridge 1982) 146, highlights the emphasis in de-scribing her as innocent: Deianira says that she hates magic and hopes not to learn magical practices. Nevertheless, she resorts to using them to dis-place the young woman of whom Heracles has recently become enamored (Trach. 531–597). The terms she uses for the practices she resolves to per-form to win Heracles back are φίλτροις and θέλκτροισι, “love charms and spells” (584–585).

passages the term

φίλος

is used in the plural to refer to friends

or loved ones in contexts in which the usefulness of rhetoric is

critiqued.

_{Socrates’ response and refutation of Callicles’}

accu-sation aims to demonstrate that, contrary to what Callicles and

others defend, oratory does not provide the power to help

anyone. I think that the exemplum of the Thessalian women is a

direct response to their claim and establishes a parallel: an

orator can help his friends the same way a Thessalian woman

helps hers when she pulls down the moon

—

she does not help

them at all.

19 _{In fact, at 480B–C Socrates concludes that rhetoric does not help to}

protect anyone from injustice, “unless someone supposes it is useful for the opposite purpose—that he should denounce most of all himself, then his relatives, and whatever other friend (καὶ τῶν οἰκείων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὃς ἂν ἀεὶ τῶν φίλων) does injustice; and should not conceal the unjust action.” Later he argues that the moderate man should aim to not deserve any punishment, but, if he deserved it, it would be better to be punished than to escape justice. He refers again to relatives: “but if he or any of his own, an individual or a city (ἢ αὐτὸς ἢ ἄλλος τις τῶν οἰκείων, ἢ ἰδιώτης ἢ πόλις), need tempering, justice and tempering must be imposed, if he is to be happy” (507D). Again, several lines below, he explicitly refers to φίλοι, linked to οἰκεῖοι: “You [Callicles] say indeed that I am unable to help myself or any of my friends or relatives (οὔτε ἐµαυτῷ οὔτε τῶν φίλων οὐδενὶ οὐδὲ τῶν οἰκείων), or save them from the most serious dangers” (508C). The

same idea is expressed in 509C: “Surely this defence definitely must be the most shameful for us to lack power to provide, for ourselves, for friends and family (µήτε αὑτῷ µήτε τοῖς αὑτοῦ φίλοις τε καὶ οἰκείοις).” The idea of “the dearest ones” appears again when Socrates describes the τεχνή of a seaman (511E), for Callicles should reckon that the seaman saves people’s lives when

he takes them safely from one place to another (ἐὰν πάµπολυ, ταύτης τῆς µεγάλης εὐεργεσίας, σώσασα ἃ νυνδὴ ἔλεγον, καὶ αὐτὸν καὶ παῖδας καὶ χρήµατα καὶ γυναῖκας, ἀποβιβάσασ’ εἰς τὸν λιµένα δύο δραχµὰς ἐπρά-ξατο). Translations from Irwin.

20 _{Also, in the lines immediately preceding our text, Socrates has}

com-pared oratory to other arts, swimming, navigation, and military engineer-ing, to show that these technai also help to save one’s life. The reference to the Thessalian women comes after this progression of comparisons and is expressed as a warning. From my point of view, this exemplum is the highest point of the denigration of orators: they are worse than other skilled men, they are like Thessalian witches, and they will destroy the city. On the other

—————

Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 282–294

Furthermore, when Callicles enters the discussion, Socrates

expresses his joy about it and addresses him as

ὦ φίλε ἐταῖρε

(482

) and

βέλτιστε

(482

).

_{Callicles is thus seen by Socrates}

as a

φίλος

. Therefore, when Socrates introduces the exemplum

with a warning for both Callicles and himself, “see if this will

benefit you and me” (

τοῦθ’ ὅρα εἰ σ ο ὶ λυσιτελεῖ καὶ ἐ µ ο ί

), he

is including his friend. This, in my opinion, has a

correspon-dence with the Thessalian women and those dearest to them

(

τὰς Θετταλίδας σὺν τοῖς φιλτάτοις

).

As a consequence, I suggest that the full stop in the Platonic

text be moved and placed after

σὺν τοῖς φιλτάτοις

, as I believe

that this syntagm refers to the loved ones whom the witches

lose. The meaning of the exemplum of the Thessalian women

and of the passage as a whole becomes clearer if we read the

text in the way I propose, and the syntactic problem with

σύν

disappears. Indeed, this preposition is used with an inclusive

value, instead of the more common

µετά

.

_{The Thessalian}

witches, for their part, are a parallel to Plato’s specific

con-ception of power in democratic Athens, and this implies a

fierce criticism not only of oratory but of the whole democratic

system. Thus Callicles’ access to power in the city bears

com-parison with the Thessalian witches’ access to unnatural power:

it will harm loved ones, as the demos of Athens is now a

col-___

hand, friendship appears to be a very important idea to define what is good, together with order. The immoderate man does not respect the order of the world and is therefore unable to form relationships (508A). The specific practice of pulling down the moon must have been seen as a rupture of this order by Plato’s audience, and order is the basis of what Plato establishes as the good. Therefore, by comparing orators to the Thessalian women, Plato is implying that obtaining political power by means of oratory is against the cosmological order. If one respected the real order of the world, one would obtain political power with philosophy, which is the only way to reach goodness. Any other way will destroy the city and everyone in it, as in fact orators could.

21 _{Translated by Irwin as “my friend” and “my excellent friend.”} 22 _{See Kühner/Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik II.1 467 n.1a.}

lective friend to him, once he has been assimilated to it.

Indeed, Socrates insists upon the point that Callicles will not be

able to obtain power unless he becomes like the demos. The

sentence

ἡ αἵρεσις ἡµῖν ἔσται ταύτης τῆς δυνάµεως τῆς ἐν τῇ

πόλει

, as I understand it, underlines that this type of power is

the only power that oratory provides, which would illustrate

the previous definition of oratory as “fawning.” Thus, in my

opinion, Plato would be stressing the focus of the sentence

(

ταύτης τῆς δυνάµεως

) by two means: by the demonstrative

and by the postponed position.

According to my interpretation, the translation of the whole

passage should run as follows:

See if this benefits you and me, so that the same thing doesn’t

happen to us, my excellent man, as they say the Thessalian

women suffer with their dearest ones when they pull down

the moon. This is the type of power that we will be seizing in

the city. But if you think anyone will pass on to you some

craft which will make you powerful in this city when you are

unlike this political system, better or worse than it, then I

think you are planning wrongly, Callicles.

February, 2017

Centro de Estudos Clássicos

Faculdade de Letras

Universidade de Lisboa

nereida@campus.ul.pt

nereidav@gmail.com

23 _{This paper was written with the support of the Fundação para a}